[Am-info] Bill Gates show loses its lustre

[Erick Andrews]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:37:35 -0600, Roy Bixler wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:38:02PM -0500, Erick Andrews wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:38:45 -0600, Roy Bixler wrote:
>> 
>> >On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:03:54AM -0500, John J. Urbaniak wrote:
>> >> And Linux is NOT the answer.  Replacing Windows with Linux would
>> >> just transfer the stagnation to a different platform.
>> >
>> >Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.  There are many different
>> >Linux distributions and many different Linux-based operating systems
>> >serving different markets.  Comparing Linux to Windows is
>> >fundamentally an apples to oranges comparison (or, if you wish, a
>> >kiwis to bananas comparison.)
>> 
>> Well.  Yes, Roy, but I think you're talking more to the letter that the
>> spirit here.
>> 
>> Linux, with all its variants (Red Hat, SUSE, Mandrake, et al), is still 
>> the *NIX "experience", OS-similar, reincarnate.  I might even argue 
>> that the new "Jaguar" for Macs grows into this category.  Windows is
>> still an Ugli-fruit compared to a lot of these Bananas, with maybe adding
>> an Apple...for good measure.  The issue is greater than Linux; or should be.
>
>The point was that to equate Linux with "Red Hat, SUSE, Mandrake, et
>al" is painting it with too narrow a brush.  There are also some more
>consumer oriented distributions like Xandros, Lindows and Lycoris
>where the traditional CLI is said to be well hidden from the user.
>Linux can also be found in embedded devices, game consoles on the
>lower end to clusters and IBM mainframes on the higher end.  Linux is
>a kernel and goes far beyond the particular distributions you name.

Point taken.

And my notion of OS choice is keeping my CLI.  If you don't want it,
well, that's ok as long as I get one.

>
>> >Even if you modified your statement to say (arbitrarily picking a
>> >particular Linux distribution here) "Replacing Windows with Red Hat
>> >Linux would just transfer the stagnation to a different platform", I'm
>> >still not entirely sure I would agree.  As long as Red Hat stays open
>> >source, I don't see how they could pull the same market manipulation
>> >tricks that Microsoft pulls.
>> 
>> They could.
>
>Really?  Care to educate us?

"could" in the speculative sense.  I'd not like to see them so lucky anymore.

>
>>  And I think that that was John's point.  I may be wrong,
>> but I read his statement as "a different platform".  I'd like to see more fruit.  
>> Different baskets.  Not just Linux.
>
>As I said, that's perfectly fine with me.  One of the things I dislike
>about Windows is that it's a monolith and encourages users not to be
>curious but instead to only see or do things in limited ways.  As an
>example, Microsoft only allows one file and program manager to go with
>Windows.  I suspect their definition of "computer literacy" is quite
>different from ours.

Of course it is.  And that's why I said "could", above.  Microsoft seems to
be betting that most users are lemmings.  Computer literacy for them is 
only having to click a mouse button.  If you want a better file manager
for Windows you pay a third party developer for it.

>
><snip>
>> Open Source works on many more *platforms*
>> than Windows, even if Windows they do.
>
>That's the point: it is users helping themselves when the traditional
>vendors can't or won't.

It would interesting to quantify how many OSS projects can't or
won't be ported to Windows.  I only recall that there were problems
getting Apache to work on NT a couple of years ago but I don't know
if that's still the case.

-- 
Erick Andrews